Bobby_2021

Yes. But you will have to grind extra hard. ? @Consept

I would personally have an insecurity if I leave some aspect of reality unexplored. However being an expert in mathematics is different to understanding and appreciating the beauty of it. Einstein's theory of relativity and his equations looks beautiful even though I don't understand what they really mean. Whatever you experience is truth. For you maths, is nothing more than numbers on a page. That is reality. That understanding would suffice.

Highly unlikely. At this point, meat eaters are simply more healthy in my observation, on average. Agriculture is a fairly recent development. We relied on meat for millions of years for than on plants. Vegans overcompensate for not eating meat is already coming across as try hard. However lab grown meat is still in it's early phases. We are yet to see it's real world effectiveness and side effects. Personally I don't have much hope. There is a whole agenda by the ruling elite to make you go vegan, while they themselves may eat meat. Especially Bill Gates. The way they are pushing the agenda onto people as if this is healthy seems so unnatural to me. Anyways I am open to the possibility that vegans could be better when a random vegan beats a meat eater.

They say they don't want macho males. But it is yet to verify if their actions and behaviour are in congruence with what they say.

The primary motivation for veganism is ethical concerns and climate change. Not to make you healthy.

True. Small difference is all it takes to make big difference after compounding over multiple stages. If you I am 0.01 second faster that you in a race, I will win the gold medal and all the rewards. The world may barely remember your name simply because you were 0.01 sec slow. The difference is between gold and silver, first and second. There is an exponential nature to success. Jews need not have grossly superb genetics to outsmart the rest of the people. Being slightly better matters a lot. Iq coorelates to the speed at which you get complex computations done. If you can be slightly faster than the masses you win. It's enough to get you 20% of all the nobel prizes. You don't have to be necessarily smart, others have to be dumber than you for you to succeed. ? High IQ parents lead to high IQ offsprings. Culture which influence genetics which in turn influences IQ is a good conversation to have.

True. Small difference is all it takes to make big difference after compounding over multiple stages. If you I am 0.01 second faster that you in a race, I will win the gold medal and all the rewards. The world may barely remember your name simply because you were 0.01 sec slow. The difference is between gold and silver, first and second. There is an exponential nature to success. Jews need not have grossly superb genetics to outsmart the rest of the people. Being slightly better matters a lot. Iq coorelates to the speed at which you get complex computations done. If you can be slightly faster than the masses you win. It's enough to get you 20% of all the nobel prizes. ? High IQ parents lead to high IQ offsprings.

I already told you what's wrong in your study. Your study assumes that you can isolate and study IQ, wealth, and education as seperate integrious variable that can exist on its own. My claim is that high IQ is what generates wealth and also better education. Those studies miss that link. Instead makes dubious claims like high IQ happened because they came from wealthy families and had higher education. In reality you can't get a STEM degree from a reputed college if you fail their IQ test. (SAT exam is an IQ test.) The coorelation is true with wealth and IQ. But high wealth doesn't cause high IQ. Now obvious you need money to buy good food and clean water free from Mercury, else your IQ will be hampered. I know that millions of people in the world don't have access to clean water and Nutritionally dense food, so their children will unfortunately have low IQ. So having an optimised environment will increase the average IQ, but only to a certain threshold. Your IQ won't go past 110 just by having good food and water. (Source: I made it up) It's primarily because you really don't get what IQ measures. And what people whit high IQs are capable of. And what an IQ test is. Either the people doing the studies are dumb (which I doubt) else they are intentionally or unconsciously ignoring what they don't want to see. Bro it doesn't work like that. Of course I didn't care to read just like you. I already admitted that I didn't read it. You just read one sentance. You can't make sense of it without reading the entire study. You are taking one sentance and claiming the study js about that in it's entirety. I said environment can have minimal impact. Not zero. Like having Nutritionally dense food and clean water. It's common sense. Yo mama twerking while pregnant might result in a retarded child. ? Nobody is denying that. You said significant impact. Then it's on you to quantify what you mean by "significant" impact . "Significant" is an ambiguous word. 80% of it is genetics. 20% of it is environment and culture. Is a good %. As the world develops more and more, people gets access to better environments. This will level the playing field. This will NOT bridge the gap between IQ of different groups. It will only widen the gap, because now it's all about genetics. It doesn't change the fact that you are blindly listening to scientists and believing them for their words. Here is another study for your viewing pleasure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False "Majority of the scientific publications fail to be replicated." I highly recommend you watch the Leo's playlist of deconstructing the myth of science. Listen you don't know if they disagree with me or not. You are making a claim from your half assed reading of research papers and incompetence to understand them in it's entirety. Plenty of researchers agree with me as well. So what? I have perfect confidence in my reasoning. What I am saying is true because of my reasoning. You are free to discuss about my logical reasoning. Instead you ask for sauce. I don't want random people in the internet to support me to give credibility to my claims. Anyway there is plenty of people who support me anyway. It's not my issue that you have poor reasoning, which is why you need people in the internet to support you. Not my problem. Lol reading your studies will take months. Who are you fooling? We both haven't read what each of send each other apart from a few sentances which terribly fails short for having a conversation about the topic.... You cannot argue with me after having read 2 sentances. What if the next sentance says something different? It's a shitshow you don't realise you are playing and dragging me into it.

https://youtu.be/P6bVl47kdNk https://youtu.be/3fq83qbjPCM Essentially what Julian Assange did is to publish documents someone else handed to him on his website. Isn't that accounts for normal journalism? What he did should fall under freedom of speech. Instead he is subject to inhumane psychological torture in prison for doing what you consider as normal journalism. Why is the US govt so afraid about whistle blowing if they didn't do illegal shady stuff in parts of the world with no strict laws or government? Transparency is supposed to be good for everyone.

1. You didn't even read it Fully. 2. You can't deconstruct the methodologies unless you have a degree in statistics bare minimum. I have some understanding of the numbers since I used to work in machine learning and published paper in this field depicting accuracy of various ML models. I easily manipulated data to fit my conclusion and published my results in a reputed journal. There is almost no way anyone can spot the manipulations that I done even if they are PHD professors. So understanding the methodology is a joke. Don't even get me started on this. Reading the conclusion is not understanding the methodology. ? 3. The momma shaking her Belly during pregnancy will result in a retarded child of IQ 75. So next time you send me a study make sure you include that as an "environmental factors". Because there exists many children with low IQ because there momma shaked her belly during pregnancy. 4. More variables don't mean more accuracy. If 80% of the results is determined by a single variable, then adding any number of variables won't improve the accuracy of a variable. Access to food and water dosen't mean your child will have high IQ. But parents with high IQ predict children with high IQ because of the heritability if IQ. And yes I know that improving access to clean drinking water and nutritional food will increase IQ. But that has a limit. If you are claiming that jews have higher IQ because of nutritious food and water, then other people who also have access to the same, should also have high IQ. Which is not the case. Which is why you drop silly variables with poor capabibiliy for predicting IQ. 5. Wait till I send you 20 more articles each of them hundreds of pages long and requires you months to properly understand and finish, only to find that they didn't take into account some important variable and made hidden assumptions in the end. You are honestly not ready for that kind of work. Don't kid yourself. If you are honest you should admit that you don't understand shit about the studies you are reading. You are blindly believing the experts. Just be real bro. I know you have taken things for granted that are mentioned in your studies and skipped straight to the conclusion. Iq is 80% heritable. Proof: Wikipedia. Listen, I don't care to read your studies just like you didn't read the ones I send you. I am just more honest. Don't just read the conclusion thinking that you understand the methodology lmao. ??? You are probably doing just that. A normal person do not posses the cognitive resources for understanding a study of that nature. You don't understand shit about how the study was conducted, their hidden agendas, the political nature of the organisation that funds the studies etc. You have no access to none of that. Just a bunch of complex math and numbers you don't understand. Do you see the level of delusion? If I am wrong, then let me know when you finished all the sources I send you. Anyway a discussion is not possible unless you read and properly understand research articles written by double PHDs, like you said. I will leave you to it.

Yes of course, if you don't eat food and drink clean water, you will suffer from dehydration and lack of energy and won't be able to perform well in IQ tests. You think I don't know that? Also, if someone points a gun to your head while you take IQ tests, scores will significantly decline. Of course. Include all of that in your "environmental" factors. It's basics of psychology. Listen man, you are really not qualified to speak with authority on this. I didn't really make claims. I provided substantial reasoning behind them. All you did is to outsource your reasoning to some random 1000 page study which I am not going to read. I could also do the same. It's a waste of time. I am sure you haven't read all the pages of the study that I put up saying the average IQ of jews is 112. You didn't even comment on it. When I provided my own reasoning you did is to say that they are not relevant. You simply don't see the connection. No study could ever properly isolate wealth, IQ, education, earning capacity. All of those are dependent on IQ which is dependent on genetics. So when a study says, "high IQ students because they come from wealthy families"I know they simply do not see where they are wrong. Plus: google can give you studies that supports both your and my conclusion. That's why I don't see a point in studies. You are literally making the same claim bro. Why should I listen to you when you say I should read random articles on the internet? ? Are you the most trusted source on planet earth to decide which studies should I read out of the millions of trash studies, out there? Direct experience and apt reasoning is how we arrive at truths. You are making claims to authority just like religious dudes say "oh so you think you are better than what the Bible says" lol Scientists are dudes no better than you or me who make tons of biases and assumptions. Why is this so hard to get lol?

Studies make way more assumptions and have biases than I do. The problem is that it's harder to find such assumptions in a technically rigorous study. My observations are not personal. It's scientific. IQ is central to psychology. Plus I have also given my reasoning behind my explanations. You can call them out if they are flawed. Here are my assumptions: 1. IQ is a real and it can be measured. 2. People with high IQs earn more and are successful in life, in the long run. 3. High IQ students do well in academia. Academia is an IQ test. 4. Standardised test scores are functionally equal IQ scores. This is central to the concept of IQ. With that said, if some groups of people exhibit better performance in academia, it's because they have high IQ, particularly in STEM/LAW/FINANCE. So jews performing well in academia, is the proof of their high IQ. I am afraid you don't quite understand how IQ works. Winning 20% of all nobel prizes is the IQ test. So this should be obvious from your own personal experience, if you understand how IQ works. Getting high SAT scores is a sign of high IQ since SAT is the IQ test. A test that involves sufficient intellectual abstractions to solve could only be solved by a high IQ individual. Asians have higher IQs and Asians routinely top the SAT tests and Indian American women out earn white men in the US as a consequence. (As I have explained in my previous thread) AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf Here is an article which states that the average jew iq is 112. Insane numbers. Life sucess is highly coorelated with IQ. Because success in academia translate to success in real life. You don't need a study to prove that snow is white or sky is blue. And accounting for the 1% of the time when the sky is green or red isn't significant. It's just an observation. Just because a study or a source exists, dosen't means it's true. Also something can be true and a study may not exist to prove it. Moreover discussion of Differences in IQ of races is banned on this forum. So you can do your own research. As I said studies like this are extremely misleading. High IQ parents are much more likely to be educated and conscientious They will generate weath more than average person. Their kids are of course likely to be high IQ because their parents are high IQ and IQ is genetic. Not because the parents are wealthy. Your "studies" do not take into account these inner dependencies. Tell me what you want to believe and I will show you a study that confirms that. It all depends on what data you choose to include and what data you choose to deny. "Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%,[6] with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=Early twin studies of adult,for late teens and adults. Here you go. Heritability of IQ is a well established fact in psychology. You shouldn't be asking for articles or sources to explain the obvious. I expected you to already know these stuff. It's all a google search away. I didn't say and run. I gave my reasoning as well. You are free to tell me where I went wrong and discuss about this rather than outright denying my observations. My assertion was that IQ matters more than environment or culture or privilege in the long run. This is the reason why Indian American women perform not only well in academia but also in earnings compared to "privileged" white men. This itself is a topic worthy of discussion on its own.

DMT is one helluva drug. ??

@something_else ok so let me get this straight. You have to compete, perform and bring more to the table for an older, less attractive, less valueable version of girl with tons of baggage, trauma & trust issues. I don't have fear of lack of performance nor my value. But that will be for a highly feminine virtuous girl that protects her value. Not some deranged hoe. Anyways you go ahead king. ? Not my cup of tea.

1. All studies have limitations and the manipulate the data to fit their presumption. So a perfectly controlled study dosen't exist. 2. That's why you have to rely on your own observations and come to conclusion while also taking into account the studies and statistics that are occurring in the area. 3. There is high chances that someone will misinterpret and accuse me of stuff because of comparing between classes of people. [Vibe of this forum is tending to woke] 4. You do not need to take into account 29 variable and control for them. Classes of people from less privileged backgrounds can outperform people from more privileged backgrounds. One quick "study" is this: Indian American women earn money equally or comparable to white men in US. Now think about this. Despite being women of color, doing all the housework and catering to kids, they earn just as much as privileged white men who do not have to worry about household work. This is why controlling for environments is crap. If there were equal opportunities, then Indian American women should have been earning more than privileged white men in US. IQ is the best predictor of academic success, which translates into more earnings and high career growth. Denying the above statement is like denying the entirety of psychology. Notice that the less privileged background of women didn't stop them from earning more than people who were extremely privileged. And IQ is largely driven by genetics. (Refer to studies in psychology) Environment factors exert only minimal influence on IQ. Jews should have IQs way higher than Indian American women in my opinion. That is simply genetics. These observations prove my point that controlling for environments is futile. Control for genetics and everything makes sense.

Damn the fact that I wil literally be doing this dreaming forever and ever is simultaneously overly satisfying and disappointing. Disappointing because all the awakening work you do in this life will go to waste once you go back to sleep. Then suffering and shit will start from ground zero once again. Satisfying because I don't feel compulsion or hurry to do or feel or be anyway because I am literally here forever.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-schools-to-eliminate-controversial-gifted-talented-classes/3313300/ Teaching methods useless in my opinion, assuming that the teacher is decently good, and knows the subject and they are talking about. Not some bum. I personally payed money to some teacher online because my college classes were taught by dumb teachers who couldn't even clear my doubts. So I do understand the value of having good teachers. But there is a limit to how good you can teach. A 130 IQ student with an Internet connection will outsmart someone who is 15 points lower than them even if they had a private tutor. I am sure that other variables do have a significant impact, like living standards, stress and nutrition. But once those are controlled you don't see too much difference in the results. There are plenty of examples from which groups of people having high IQ but grew up in poverty outsmart their privileged peers. Talking about all of these factors without losing its essence in a single thread is hard. I am always for equal opportunities. I am also for unequal results.

What I am saying is that if we gave advanced education just like jews did, not everyone is going to make it thorough it. Also your capability to learn is what makes more of a difference than effective methods of teaching. A class of 20 students get different results with the same teacher. Now you might say they all come from backgrounds with different opportunities. But you can control for opportunities and still the results will correlate to their IQ. Equal opportunities and unequal results. On educational system: With that said, our teachers and education system is trash. They themselves don't really understand what they are teaching, except for delivering surface level explanations and showing off a few slides. But sadly we are removing gifted classes because they are apparently racist by the woke left. In reality they are racist against asian americans.

@Carl-Richard As a case study, take 1000 students and mandate advanced calculus, chess, puzzles, multiple languages from the time they are 2 years old. Now do the same with students different cultures. You will get my point. I bet jews or asians will do better in such classes because they already had high IQs in the first place. And things are not so simple. If mandating advanced education lead to better results in life, they would have already done it. Such people should do better in college overall. Stem, finance education is extremely rigorous. That's why they select only high IQs to appear for the college. If you make it mandatory for everyone, then most kids would fail. It involves computations and cognitive powers which not everyone possesses.

Thank you. I hope we both understood something. I certainly did. I don't intend to continue this discussion either. With that said I need to clarify one point for others reading this. There is huge difference in interpreting what I said as "woman are damaged" vs "damage has been done to aspects of her". The latter is true. Former is not. The former is implying that everything about her is damaged. Slut shaming happens from the former. Slut shaming is meant to degrade her as an individual. Which is why it's ugly and misogynistic. Your leg can be damaged and you are still functional as an individual. When I say her leg is damaged, you are interpreting it as "she is damaged". The damage has certainly be done. Nope. It does not. Girl is not damaged. "Girl has been damaged" is a whole different statement lol. That means she is dysfunctional as an individual who won't even be able to properly function in society. What I said is that aspects of her which magnify her feminity has been damaged. Undoing the damage has to do with overcompensating because you have to cater more, because guys have disappointed her in the past, and she naturally thinks you would do the same. Not to mention higher expectations, mental baggage & trauma. Many even turn into man haters, just because of bad things that happen in the relationship. Nice joke. ? You should put this up for discussion.

why are you competiting with random young guys in the first place. And you are conflating high standards with high expectations. A women who has been in more relationships will only have more expectations. And you will always fall short. She definitely and certainly feels like she lost a great catch. It becomes harder for you to satisfy her. This is worse than the flip side. You never really wonder about other guys if you haven't been in a serious possibility that you could be with them. If you dated and dumbed a film star celebrity, you would always wonder about how great your life would be with them. If you have never dated a film star, you don't seriously entertain that possibility anyway. Plus young people are more malleable and adjustable. Older people are more rigid. So comitting young instead of sleeping around had it's own benifits. ??? You know what? It's completely ok that you responded like this. I never expect a woman to objectively understand the base level mechanics of dating market. It's too harsh for the feminine psyche.

I didn't say women are damaged. It's the capacity to commit is what gets damaged. And women who has low levels of commitment are low value. This is a consequence of sleeping around. Which is true. Again this applies to men with commitment issues as well. His ability to commit will also become damaged. Fact. You nitpick what you want to hear. I stick to every word that I have said. And even explained my reasoning with facts and statistics. And you are not going to bully me away with childish accusations of "misogyny". Men having higher standards will obviously result in some women not qualifying to such standards. It's not "ostracization" or "misogyny" lol ? You are exaggerating my words to make me look as such.

????

@Tyler Robinson I am sorry that it offended and hurt your feelings. It's not misogynistic to say racking up a higher body count has consequences. I included men as well in my assessment. So I don't get where the misogyny part comes from. The same issues also applies to men. The men who smoothly attracts hundreds of women are not going to ve highly developed spiritual sages. They themselves will narcissistic confident assholes. The only way you can get rid of the baggage is by doing deep spiritual work which most people will never ever do. Are you saying that "sexual liberation" has zero consequences on future relationships? The sexual market place is not a sweet and fail place where everyone is equally valued for who they are. That slut shaming that you lowkey support is itself a mechanism built by partriarcy so that women preserve their value. It's the same way how men who are poor, short, different skin colour & accent, has a tougher time in the dating market because they are associated with lower value by women. This is done so with zero explanation or compassion to the men that are being eliminated from the Market. Similarly women can also be of low value. Women who can preserve their feminity will be of higher value. It's not hateful to observe either of those.

@Carl-Richard 1. I can guarantee that Jews have higher IQs than other races. IQ is the best predictor for success in modern psychology. This is a statistical fact. And IQ has a huge genetic component. There you go. 2. Discussing IQ of races is banned on this forum. So I have restrictions on defending my point with elaborate numbers. You will have to do a google search on Jew IQ and you will find a number of sources proving my point. 3. The problem with this argument is that there are groups of people who grew up in similar cultures and huge pressures put upon them and they never quite excelled. Culture is the variable here. I am not denying cultural pressures. But many other cultures also had plenty of similar pleasures and they never quite excelled. When you take those into account, you realise that culture could have been either way and some culture may/may not have excelled. You can leave your farming job and do finance only if you already had the genetics to do finance. Maybe this could make a good case of culture shaping the genetics. You cannot completely seperate both. But culture needs eons of time to have any significant influence on genetics. And culture is not arbitrary either. If some culture found out that they could make hundreds of millions of dollars by working hard they would absolutely do it. You might say that they were not privileged enough. But there are a lot of cases of unprivileged cultures being more successful than privileged ones and vice versa.